[phoenixmj]

In face to face bridge, the partner of the bidder makes the alert. The alert is per the partnership agreement. If the bidder has made a mistake and not followed the partnership agreement, and we wind up being declarer, does the bidder need to announce the mistake and if so, is it before the opening lead?

Case in point. Our partnership agreement includes Drury. Yesterday, my partner was a passed hand and I bid 1 heart. Then my partner bid 2 clubs and I alerted the bid as a 3 card limit raise. Opponents bid one time and we proceeded to play 3 hearts. When my partner's hand came down, he had 2 hearts and 10 points. The 2 hearts were the A and the ten. In reality, I would want him to support my suit with the A, 10 doubleton because those are two very valuable cards. He also had 5 clubs. I suspect he was bidding clubs without thinking about Drury, but I surely did not know that until his hand came down. Did he have an obligation to disclose that he did not have 3 hearts or is all OK since I have no knowledge that the opponents do not have.

Another example - last week we were playing and I opened 2 NT. We play modified puppet where the answer to 3c is 3H if you have no 4 or 5 card major, and 3NT is you have 5 hearts. I had 5 hearts. But, in a mental lapse I said 3H, when he alerted and said and when asked, said that it was no 4 or 5 card major. He proceeded to bid 3NT. Now, in this case, I had information that he might have hearts, and after the bidding was over but before the lead, I acknowledged that I had made an error. But it was unclear to me exactly how much I had to disclose since he did explain our exact partnership agreement correctly. Turns out, he had 4 hearts and we had a great fit. Also turns out, 3NT played quite well and we did fine - in fact those extra 10 points got us a score in the top half for that board.

So, I want to be ethical and not sure what is the right answer when you simply make an error but you partner explains your bid according to the agreement.

Thanks in advance.

[steve2005]

If he forgot-he doesn't have to inform the opponent's before the lead.


If it goes the other way things change.
For example if he did have a Drury hand and bids 2C but opener did not alert, then before the opening lead responder must inform the opponent's there was a failure to alert 2C.

[AL78]

If you have misbid, your partner's explanation is unauthorised information to you during the auction and play so you must carry on bidding as though partner has interpreted your bid as you do. If you have bid correctly and partner has given a misexplanation you should inform the opponents at the earliest legal moment, which is at the end of the hand if you are defending or at the end of the auction and prior to the opening lead if one of you is declaring.

[pescetom]

Drury example. You remembered the agreement to play Drury and you alerted, which I think is correct even in ACBL (which often requires no alert for conventions popular in US). But your partner either forgot and thought his 2♣ was natural, or remembered but decided to deviate with AT, or wasn't certain but figured it would work out either way. In any case, both his deviation and lack of any related explanation are legal. I think that ethics require you and partner to discuss the incident and agreement before playing together again, but that is not written in the law (although it does say that experience forms implicit agreements, so you cannot pretend nothing happened).

Puppet example. Partner remembered the agreement to bid a modified Puppet and alerted it, which has to be correct. But you forgot and thought 3♥ showed 5 card hearts. Your deviation is legal and so is your choice to explain it after the auction, although you also have the right to remain in silence (and some argue that is better). There is no ethical problem and not much to discuss, you forgot There is however the complication that they asked for explanation and the explanation provided is not authorised to you (which you realized and avoided a hearts bid suggested). Your opponents may well be sore that you got a good score despite (perhaps even because of) your mistake, but the laws have no objection to that.

[blackshoe]

One thing I would add: when you are correcting an erroneous explanation, either your own or your partner's, you must call the Director and provide the correction in his presence.

[mycroft]

Heh, I'm just writing this up for a talk later in the year (among other "Laws you need to know - the Director can't help you"). Cutting out the explanations:

You Misbid
Assuming it’s truly a misbid, then:

• The opponents are entitled to your agreement. They got your agreement. It’s not what you have, but there is nothing to correct, ever.
  
• But if it’s a misbid partner’s seen often enough to have a feeling, your agreement actually is “<agreement>, but I forget.” and the opponents are entitled to that.
  
• You may not say or do anything that could possibly wake up partner, outside of your bids and plays. This includes calling the Director and asking to speak with her away from the table.
  
• You may not use partner’s Alert, explanation or lack of Alert to “wake up”.
  
• You can’t bid in such a way as to try to wake up partner.
  
• You can’t bid an a way to “hope to survive”, for instance by passing a bid that would have been forcing if partner had explained the way you thought you were playing.

Repeat: you do not have to do anything, even admit to your mistake (except to the Director). The opponents will likely call the Director, but that’s fine. If they have an issue and gripe at you, you can and should call the Director.

Partner Misexplained
The opponents do not have your agreement, so you must correct the explanation, at the appropriate time. You must not do anything (flinch, “No!”, …) before that time. You have to know the correct timing!

• If you or partner is declarer, you must correct the explanation before the opening lead.
  
• If the opponents are declaring, you may not correct the explanation before the end of the hand. It is likely that it’s going to be found out before then, of course.
  
• You still must bid and play as if partner explained everything correctly. This includes Alerting and explaining partner’s calls according to your agreements (even if it wakes partner up).

Note that doubts go the way of “partner misinformed”. If you aren’t sure, after hearing partner’s explanation, that they were correct and you misbid, treat this as “partner got it wrong, not me”.

You Misexplained
It is rare, outside of “Clubs and a major - no wait, we play Brozel. Clubs and Hearts”. But it happens. You are required to correct your misexplanation no later than the end of the auction, before the opening lead. You are allowed to do so at any time. If you only wake up in the play, you must still correct it immediately.

While “The Director should be summoned when attention is drawn to an irregularity” in general, it’s almost essential to do it when correcting your own explanation.


For the Legal of all of this, read Laws 75 and 21, and Law 73 on Unauthorized Information.

[jillybean]

Super! May I suggesting including the reason why you tell the opponents of MI immediately after the auction when your side is declaring, and why you wait until after the hand if defending.
You may also want to add, don't look at partner above waist height to protect against UI from the whiplash response when you give an incorrect explanation, have over bid or made the wrong lead

[mycroft]

I did a bunch of trimming - note the "cutting out the explanations" bit. It was already too long for a forum post.

I will ensure that explanation is there - it certainly is in my spoken blurb about it. Thanks!

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2023-March-17, 09:31, said:

Super! May I suggesting including the reason why you tell the opponents of MI immediately after the auction when your side is declaring, and why you wait until after the hand if defending.

It should be obvious, if they are thinking.
But worth spelling it out all the same, I agree.
Laws (the good ones, at least) are easier to remember if you understand the problems they are trying to solve, just like bidding conventions (the good ones, at least) are.

 jillybean, on 2023-March-17, 09:31, said:

You may also want to add, don't look at partner above waist height

Hmm. Maybe "don't look at partner", full stop?
Looking at partner below waist height is difficult at most bridge tables, with an opponent it's easier but also more risky (as Helen S. was well aware)

[pescetom]

 mycroft, on 2023-March-17, 10:52, said:

I did a bunch of trimming - note the "cutting out the explanations" bit. It was already too long for a forum post.

I will ensure that explanation is there - it certainly is in my spoken blurb about it. Thanks!

You might also take another look at 'outside of “Clubs and a major - no wait, we play Brozel. Clubs and Hearts”.'
I more or less understood it (after years of mycroft) but others might not

[mycroft]

Much appreciated. "Years of mycroft" - ah that makes a lot of sense. I have been told two things many times in my life:

• You write like you speak;
  
• And you can be very confusing, especially with frequent side-tracks, when you speak.

Yeah - okay :-).

I intend (if I can figure out how to use PedantPoint) to display actual bullet points, and perhaps the text as an after. So I only have to fix my notes for *after* I've confused them with my talk.